Good luck! Time will tell. Most quit runnin pavement out here because of fri practice cost and tire cost. I still fell the 55% will elimanate your current inventory. Iv'e ran 10 dirt shows for what i spent for two pavement shows on tires. If you want to make this work you need to go to a spec. chassis and motor. Is a combo car at a disadvantage against purpose built dirt or pavement cars more than likely. So well the next changes be to elimanate current dirt cars. All i want is for them to reevaluate there 55%.

Duane mcQueen

I am not taking sides on this issue, however I totally understand the point in which Keith and Rick are trying to make. In my job I have the exact scenario play out as has played out in this post on a regular basis. When “new” directions are taken after years of status quo there is always hesitation/uncertainty/pessimism by a majority of people. Things cannot change entirely overnight and not all the exact/correct elements will initially be known. However, in order to get exact/correct elements you have to start somewhere at sometime. This is what the BCRA is trying to do. A holistic view must taken, a vision of sorts. I guarantee that even if the BCRA did testing prior to the new rules and concluded the 55% was adequate, there still would be people on here saying there is no way it will work.

I know the intent is not to put these rules in stone and never review/change them if something doesn’t work. Not one time did I read that this proposal was the end all save all for the association. Something must be implemented in order to work towards bettering racing otherwise this exact discussion will continue year after year with no progress.

I will take an example from my work experience. The community that I live/work in has for years always been against impact fees for new development. Each time the issue would come up the community would come forth with opposition stating impact fees will run developers away and put an unnecessary burden on potential homeowners as the fees will be passed on to the consumer. Every one got caught up in the specific fees that would be charged, instead of looking at the overall broad concept that this will help the City pay for services and most importantly take the burden of the taxpayer for years into the future. The economic downturn hits, the City is hit hard and revenues are only a 1/3 of what they once where, yet the service needs are the same. The City had to cut some services. However, had the City Council stood there ground and implemented the impact fees the City would have more than enough revenue to sustain/maintain current service levels. This is exactly what the BCRA is trying to prevent. Nobody wants to be discussing in a few years the good old days of the now defunct BCRA.